About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Main | What is an Abstract Idea, Anyway? »

February 27, 2020

Comments

Bravo for the dissenters. How did the Federal Circuit become populated with so many judges who willfully misread the statute? This result was not mandated by a Supreme Court decision, this is the CAFC choosing of its own volition to corrupt patent law.

Hey Don,

The dissent and Judge Newman are correct that the term “consisting essentially of” has a well-established meaning. That the rest of the Federal Circuit suggests otherwise is a disgrace.

I agree with the crowd here. The dissent got it right. It makes no sense to include the quicker drying time in the claim

This illustrates the problems inherent in adjudication by judges inexperienced in technology and in patent law. The meaning of the term "consisting essentially of" has been well-established and recognised amongst practitioners for generations. The "all elements" rule also familiar to practitioners for generations but now commonly disregarded by the courts has the converse that features not mentioned in a claim are not claimed features and therefore cannot render the subject matter defined by the claim indefinite, as explained by the dissenting judges.

What is the point in the expenditure of professional time and skill in the drafting of claims intended to define with precision the subject-matter sought to be protected when their wording can be and often is utterly disregarded by the courts?:

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30